R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The questions referred in TC Nos. 35 and 36 of 2001 concerning the asst. yr. 1985-86 are:
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee engaged in export of granites was eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1985-86?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance, as the activities -of the assessee, namely, mining granite from quarries and exporting them after cutting, polishing, etc., would come within the purview of manufacture or production for the purpose of relief under Section 32A of the IT Act?"
2. Counsel submit, and submit rightly that the first question is covered by the decision of this Court, against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue, reported as CIT v. Pooshya Exports P. Ltd. . The second question is also covered by the decision of this Court reported as CIT v. Gomatesh Granites .
3. As similar questions have already been considered and answered in the aforementioned decisions, answers similar to those recorded therein is also to be, and is recorded in these cases as well, against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue.
4. So far as T.C. No. 111 of 2000 is concerned, counsel submits that the question referred therein has become academic in the light of the decision now rendered by us. The question referred viz.,
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Department's appeal without considering any of the grounds raised by the Department on merits"
is, therefore, returned unanswered.